Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-08 Harbor Commission SummaryKENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, Kenai City Hall 3ohn Williams, Chai.~man 1983 AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. AGENDA APPROVAL · APPROVAL OF MINUTES of Octobe~ 25, 1983 4. GUEST SPEAKERS 5. COMMUNICATIONS 6. REPORTS a. Report from Commissioner Houtz 7. OLD BUSINESS a · Design Concepts f~om TAMS b · Lette.r f~om TAMS- Returning Item 8. NEW BUSINESS a · Request to Lease City Lands - Lot 1, Kenai Spit Schmidt/Ducker/Edelman - Fisherman's Packing S/D b · Financial Report f.~om C.A. B~own, Finance Director 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 10. AD3OURNMENT PLEASE CONTACT 3ANET IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, ~8} Kenai City Hall John Williams, Chairman 1. ROLL CALL P~esent: Williams, T. Thompson, Houtz, Welle~ Mayor Wagoner, Public Works Di~ecto~ Kornelis, and City Enginee~ LaShot · Absent: Dragseth, Quesnel, & M.W. AGENDA APPROVAL Thompson all excused Chairman Williams asked to place Agenda approved with the addition Mr. Jim White on the agenda APPROVAL OF MINUTES of Octobe~ 25, 1983 Chairman Williams noted that the name "Dan FredricksTM should ~ead "Donald F~edrickson".~ ~In ~tbe last large paragraph of page one, change to "the .~9~t~h~:~-~'<~o~ruld be b~ought in at the airport for shipment to all parts of ~ltaska instead of into Anchorage ." k~' ~~~ ~~~?~'~ MOTION: Commissione~ Thompson moved to approve the minutes as changed, seconded by Commissioner Welle~. There were no objections NOTE: Due to the technical aspects of the following subjects, portions of the minutes were recorded verbatim, sections of which appea~ in the text of this document. · GUEST SPEAKERS a. Jim White - Docking P~oposal .............. This is a ~eturning item. Mr. White was asked to obtain a w~itten Ietter from M~. F~edrickson detaiIing his p~oposal. The original letter was entered into the ~ecord, Chairman Wiliiams ~ead the letter for those present. Chairman Williams had requested a financial statement from the finance director, Chairman Williams read it to the Commission to review what money was available for harbor projects. KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, Novembe~ 8, 1~8~ Page 2 Chairman Williams pointed out that the lands suggested by M~. F~ed~ickson had been selected as a prime location fo~ a ha~bo~ by the Co~ps of Engineers, CH2M Hill, and TAMS due to the way that the river washes out that a~ea. Chairman Williams suggested that when TAMS engineers come to Kenai fo~ the meeting with the Council that they be asked to do a cost and feasibility study fo~ this concept. MOTION: Commissioner Houtz moved that the city authorize TAMS to undertake a limited feasibility study including specifically, 1) how much land is the minimum required to accomodate a facility as suggested, 2) frontage and total area, }) what would be the approximate cost, motion seconded by Commissioner Thompson. Commissioner Weller asked if the Houtz was to proceed with having ascertain the cost of the study. intent of Commissione~ the study made or first MOTION WITHDRAWN The Commission decided to draw up considered. a list of items to be 1) 2) 4) total area that would be ~equi~ed for of this type f~ontage ~equi~ed cost of construction size of barge expected to utilize the usable facility facility. MOTION: Commissione~ Houtz moved to recommend to the City Council that the Ha~bo~ Commission ~equests TAMS to p~epa~e a cost estimate of a feasibility study to include the above items and other as ~equi~ed, seconded by Commissioner Thompson. Chairman Williams noted that the City of Kenai spent $100,000 to regain City property and in this case the gentleman was willing to donate property. If and when developed, both the owner and the City would stand to gain. The Commission further discussed the project. NOTE: Mayor Wagoner joined the meeting Commissioner Houtz asked how much land was involved in the donation, there is a big difference between say 50' where the dock itseIf wiiI sit and 90 acres. Commissioner WeiIer brought out the point of demurrage and iand needed for that purpose. Mayor Wagoner stated that he wondered if the City KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, Novembe~ 8, 198~ P age ~ should be involved in this p~oject at all because the City can ente~ into, more or less a partnership with any p~ivate pa~ty be selling tax f~ee ~evenue bonds fo~ this, which seems mo~e like an ideal situation. "We'~e looking at a service fo~ industry and the population of Kenai/Nikiska a~ea and maybe tie into the airport overall". NOTE: Chairman Williams will be possible conflict of interest. abstaining f~om voting due to a VOTE: Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote. 6. REPORTS a. Report f~om Commissione~ Houtz .......... Chairman Williams explained that the request fo~ Comm- issioner Houtz to do this report was b~ought about by the letter f~om TAMS on October lP, lP8} in which M~. Ho~ton ~equests confirmation that the work has been completed. It as decided at the last meeting not to recommend payment, however it has been established that payment has been made The question b~ought out was whethe~ o~ not p~oper en- gineering p~ocedu~es were followed. This question was brought about because of concerns with the mud at the base of the ~amp, the fine fill that seems to be filtering out f~om the head of the ~amp and othe~ apparent inadequacies. While this is not for the Commission to determine, whethe~ o~ not the engineering was co~ect because the City had full and total ~esponsibility for inspections both before, during and after, the Commission do'es wish to conside~ the issue. F~om the conversations Chairman Williams has had with the engineering fi~m, they indicate that the boat ~amp was built exactly according to specs, that the~e was some discussion between the City and the cont~acto~ as to the depth of the boat ~amp at its base, whethe~ it should have been lowe~ or higher, and that in one discussion they said that it was thei~ feeling that the contracto~ used, as fa~ as fill is concerned, not quite up to specifications, that in fact they may be too fine. Keith Ko~nelis stated that Oack LaShot was the inspecto~ for the job. M~. LaShot stated that he had not had any conversations with TAMS directIy about the ~amp being highe~ o~ Iowe~, but it appea~s that they specified. KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 198} Page 4 There was fu~the~ discussion, the Commission then siides presented by Commissioner Houtz. viewed the (Discussion du~ing p~esentation) Commissioner Houtz - I specifically ~aised the point with TAMS, we were asking why the thing is in a depression and how would they establish the depth below the line at the top of the sheet ~ock. Mike Ho~ton said that his analogy to the No~th Slope snow was completely in er~o~. He felt that the~e would tend to be a stagnant place behind the~e that would fill with silt. M~. Ho~ton said, "it doesn't work that way with silt". Commissioner Houtz fu~the~ asked about the incline of the ~amp and the terminal foot elevation of it the~e because it was specified to go to -26 o~ something like that and wondered why it was specified to end at that depth and how its length was established and M~. Ho~ton stated that "the only thing that was done to establish that slope was to follow the line of the existing sheet ~ock." In other wo~ds the~e was no big engineering decision made the~e. Mr. Horton said that their position was that it was too steep,m this one in 12 and that the City wanted it steepe~. Now when he said City I got the impression he was claiming that the harbo~ division o~ 3ack or Keith. The slides and discussion turned to the sheet pile and the originaI construction. A photo was shown of the dock adjacent to the boat ~amp. It appea~s that the area in f~ont of the dock is d~edged, the mud dumped further out into the ~ive~ which then is washed toward the ~amp on the incoming tide. The discussion and slides turned to the highe~ portion of the ~amp. Mayo~ Wagone~ suggested several truckloads of aggregate to shore up the ~etaining wall. Keith stated that in the sp~ing the crews would be going in with a backhoe and backfilling the dockside. Commissione~ Houtz stated that he felt the ramp is constructed according to the drawings and "if we ~eally take issue with that I think we should take TAMS to task, of course the~e is nothing that can be done financially at this point. The Commission agreed that the grade of the slope was no different f~om the o~iginal ramp, that the top of the ~amp was bu~ied as the ~amp got olde~. Mayo~ Wagone~ stated that the contractor had asked if the design engineer had gone down to the ~amp and looked at it at low tide, the contractor showed 6 different items that he had to cut out of the way in orde~ to build the ramp that were neve~ shown on the drawings, and perhaps they had been bu~ied in the mud. KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, Page 5 The Commission adjourned to view the maps in Mr. Brighton's office which showed the ramp before the recent construction. Mayor Wagoner noted that a shovel and a pair of boots, move about 2' of dirt and take aiine of sight down through the sheet piiing on the iower si'de about 50' and the sheet piiing couid have been found. The Commission next discussed the fili and methods of measuring it pius the ciass of fiiI which was not designated fuIi y in the bid documents. It was the consensus of the Commission that pubIic works d~aft of Iette~ iisting the concerns and inadequacies with the ~amp to be avaiiabIe by Novembe~ 16th. Chairman WiIiiams wiii hand deIive~ the iette~ and speak with TAMS. TAMS wiii be asked to ~espond to the iette~ but not on that date. 7. OLD BUSINESS a. De. sign Co,n,,ce..,pts f~om TAMS Chairman Wiiliams stated that TAMS is p~epa~ed to go be fo~e the Councii with the ~ecommendation that Aite~natlve 2 be the ha~bo~ pIan that is chosen due to its contou~ design to the pipeiine and the fact that the pipeiine wouid not have to be moved in this design. Aite~native 5 wouid cause mo~e p~obIems with_in the ~ive~ but is stiiI bette~ than the othe~ } o~iginaiiy p~esented to the Commission. Chairman Wiiiiams asked that any Commissione~ abIe to attend the CounciI meeting, pIease do so. b. .. Lett..er fr.°m_. TA. MS-..Returnin...g Item No fu~the~ comments o~ discussion 8. NEW BUSINESS a. Request to Lease City Lands - Lot 1, Kenai Spit S/D, Schmidt, Ducker, Edelman - Fisherman's Packing Along with the lease application and memo that was included in the packet, a memo was handed out at the meeting ~eiating to the history of the Iot itseif and the subsequent Iease appIications. Chairman WiIIiams info~med the Commission that he had ~equested this history due to the t~emendous st~uggIe that has gone on concerning this business.Mayo~ Wagone~ pointed out that R. Lee Seafoods was neve~ officiaiiy disbanded as a co~po~ation no~ were the assets KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 198~ P age 6 ever disposed of, me~ely left in limbo and Seacateh then came into being through name change so Seacatch officiaiIy and iegaliy was still R. Lee Seafoods. The lease application asks fo~ the maximum Iength of time aliowed by the city, expansion of the p~esent fisheries processing plant and the need for extra space fo~ boat storage pIus an additional building. Mayo~ Wagoner voiced his concerns that the original application asked fo~ the lot across f~om Columbia Street then changed the application and asked for waterfront land. This operation already has all the docking space they need, and have already tied up all the river frontage they need. There have been two other parties interested in the lot along the river fo~ putting in another fish p~ocessing plant. Mayo~ Wagone~ stated that he does not feel that it would not be in the City's best interest to lease additional frontage along the ri ve~. The Commission next discussed the ROW's on the maps. Chairman Wiiiiams stated that it is the Commission's responsibiiity to see that aii the Iands aiong the ~iver are used p~ope~iy and efficientiy. The utiIities that a~e being requested, i.e. an ice house, a cooI room, and boat storage have nothing in common whatsoever with wate~ front usage. Mayo~ Wagone~ voiced concern over filling in wetlands; it may not be possible to fill in eithe~ lot 1 o~ 2 as that is snow geese habitat. Commissione~ Welle~ asked if it was appropriate to inquire as to the current status of their existing lease, Mayor Wagoner stated that it was appropriate, however he was not aware of the current status. Commissione~ Weller noted that the cost estimates were not half of what the current cost of constructing buildings of this type. MOTION: Commissioner Thompson moved to approve the lease application for Lot 1, Kenai Spit S/D as described, seconded by Comm- issioner Houtz. VOTE: Motion failed unanimously by ~oll call vote. Mayor Wagone~ stated that he would like to see the lease appiication go on with the ~ecommendation that they go back to the o~iginaI Iease requested (the Iot to the west), state that the Harbor Commission has no p~obiem if the City and KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 198~ R age 7 the Planning Commission ente~ into discussion regarding the that o~iginal application. b. Financial Report - C.A. B~own The Commission again went ove~ the money available fo~ harbor projects. No action. 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned a~ ~:45 pm. The nex~ regular meeting of the Harbor Commission will be Tuesday, December 1~, 1¢8~. However, Chairman Williams will not be in a~endance. A meeting may be scheduled upon receipt of correspondence from TAMS. Janet Loper Secretary KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Kenai City Hall John Williams, Chairman 1. ROLL C~ALL Present: Williams, T. Thompson, Houtz, Weller Mayor Wagoner, Public Works Director, Kornelis & City Engineer LaShot. Absent: Dragseth, Quesnel, & M.W. Thompson all excused 2. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Williams asked to place Mr. Jim White on the Agenda Agenda approved with the agenda 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 25, 1983 Chairman Williams noted that the name "Dan Fredricks" should read "Donald Fredrickson". In the last large paragraph of page one, change to "The rail cars could be brought in at the airport for shipment to all parts of Alaska instead of into Anchorage." MOTION: . Commissioner Thompson moved to approve the minutes as changed, seconded by Commissioner Weller. There were no objections 4. GUEST SPEAKERS a. Jim White - Docking Proposal This is a returning item. Mr. White was asked to obtain a written letter from Mr. Fredrickson detailing his proposal. The original letter was entered into the record, Chairman Williams read the letter for those present. Chairman Williams had also requested a financial statement from the finance director, Chairman Williams read it to the Commission to review what money was available for harbor projects. Chairman Williams pointed out that the lands suggested by Mr. Fredrickson had been selected as prime location for a harbor by the Corps of Engineers, CH2M Hill, and TAMS, due to the way that the river washes that area~R- KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 2 Chairman Williams suggested that when TAMS engineers come to Kenai for the meeting with the Council that they be asked to do a cost and feasibility study for this concept. MOTION: Commissioner Houtz moved that the city authorize TAMS to undertake a limited feasibility study including specifically, 1) how much land is the minimum required to accomodate a facility suggested, 2) frontage and total area, 3) what would be the approximately cost, seconded by Commissioner T. Thompson. Commissioner Weller asked if the intent of Commissioner Houtz was to proceed with having the study made or first ascertain the cost of the study. The Commission agreed. MOTION WITHDRAWN The Commission decided to draw up a list of items to be considered: 1) total area that would be required for usable facility of this type 2) frontage required 3) Cost of construction 4) size of barge expected to utilize the facility MOTION: Commissioner moved to recommend to the City Council that the Harbor Commission requests TAMS to prepare a cost estimate of a feasibility study to include the abOve items and others as required, seconded by Commissioner · Chairman Williams noted that the City of Kenai spent $100,000 to regain City property and in this case the gentleman was willing to donate property. If and when developed both the owner and the City would stand to gain. The Commission further discussed the project. NOTE: Mayor Wagoner joined the meeting Commissioner Houtz questioned how much land was involved in the donation to the City. There is a big difference if Mr. Fredrickson means to donate say 50' where the dock itself will sit. Commissioner Weller brought out the point of demurrage and land needed for that purpose. KEN~I HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 3 Mayor Wagoner stated that he wondered if the City should be involed in this project at all because the City can enter into, more or less a partnership with any private party by selling tax free revenue bonds for this, which seems more like an ideal situation. We're looking at a service for industry and the population of Kenai/Nikiska area .and maybe tie into the airport overall. VOTE.~ Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote NOTE: Chairman Williams abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. 6 REPORTS a.. ..... R.e. port ..from c. pmmissioner H0utz Chairman Williams explained that the request for Commissioner Houtze to do this report was brought about by the letter from TAMS on October 18, 1983 in which Mr. Horton, in a communication with the City of Kenai states that '"please find attached our final account on the above contract, all work included in our professional services agreement of 9/4/83 was completed with the award of the construction contract. We would appre- ciate your confirmation that we have completed our work, etc." It was decided at the last meeting not to recommend, at that time, that this payment be made, however, this payment may have already been made and this point may be moot. Jack LaShot stated that they have been given payments all ~along. The question came about as to whether or not proper engineering proceedures were followed or proper engineering was completed on the new boat ramp. The question was brought about because of concerns with the mud at the base of the ramp, the fine fill thats seems to be filtering out from the head of the ramp and other apparent inadequacies. That is NOT for the Commission to determine, whether or ~not the engineering was correct because the City had full and total responsbility for inspections, both before, during and after. From the conversations Chairman Williams has had with the engineering firm, they indicate that the boat ramp was built exactly according to specs, that there was some discussion between the City and the contractor as to the depth of the boat ramp at its base, whether it should have been lower or higher. And that in one discussion I had with them they said that it was their feeling that the feelings that the contractor used, as far as fill is concerned, is not quite up to specifications, that in fact they may be too fine. Keith Kornelis stated that Jack LaShot was the inspector for the job. Jack LaShot stated that he had not had any conversation with TAMS directly about the ramp being higher or lower, but it appears that they KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION SPecial Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 4 specified. Chairman Williams asked Jack LaShot his feelings about the specifications. Keith Kornelis stated that there were many things in the contract document that really did not pertain to the work. There were items like boiler footers that they just took out of a computor and plugged into the specs and did not fit the project. There were alot of specific things that needed to be changed just to meet our time table. As far as inspection goes, when we started the project, we talked about TAMS doing the .inspection, but they were not able to work that out, it would have cost the City an extreme amount of money to have the TAMS man sent up from bHomer ah a time when the tides would be suitable. The City felt that-.it-~could~ adequately handle inspections and Jack did go .to the ramp twice a day. The Commission viewed the slides as presented by Commissioner Houtz. Keith Kornelis stated that it appears that the boat ramp was built by the contractor according tO the design specifications. There were two change orders that the public works felt were legitimate and the contractor felt was legitimate, but the Council turned it down. --- Houtz . ~ -(this is the location of the landing mat) this seemed to be a problem. This was on the drawings, one of the few that. was on the drawings, this bulkhead has a long distrance through here and at a good portion of the tide this would be buried anywhere from 2" to 2', a boat 3-4" underwater could very possibly hit that. Wagoner - only a fool would come into a boat ramp at an angle like that though. Weller: "what's wrong with putting in a peice of 7" casing as a guide or marker. Wagoner: "I'll tell you what that could do, on an on-going tide it could cause enough tUrbulence in there with the water to keep some of the mud off of it. Houtz: "it looks like that was the original idea". Wagoner' "yes, I think it probably was. Create a swirling effect to keep that mud out." Weller: how far up will the water come here. Wagoner' way up high. Wagoners' you can put a ? inaudible. Williams: what do you say we .recommend. on putting a couple stanchions at the end of that bulkhead. Wagoner' maybe just driving a small pike so you can drop a 15 footer in there. Weller: I think your hurting your caus,~, pud coming both ways, cut around there and back up behind there. ~'~%~z'-.~-r' that's what I said to TAMS, I specifically r~ised that point, let me review what they told me, we were asking why is the thing in a depression and how would they establish the depth below the line at the top of the sheet rock, Mike Horton said that my analagy to the North Slope snow was completely in error. I felt that there would tend to be a stagnant place behind there that would fill with silt. Horton said, "it doesn't work that way with silt". So in other words that idea was pooh pooh. I'm not saying that because he says that it is a true statement I'm just telling you thats what I was told. I was 'further asking about the incline about the ramp and the terminal foot elevation of it there cause I recall it was KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 5 Houtz (cont'd) specified to go to -26 or something like that and I wondered why it was specified to end at that depth and how its length was established and he said that "the onlY thing that was done to 'establish that slope was to follow the line of the existing sheet rock." So in other words there was no big engineering decision made there. He said that their position was that it was too steep, this one in 12 and that the City wanted it steeper. Now when he said City I got the impression he was claiming that the harbor division or Jack or Keith Keith - he never talked to me at all about that. Houtz- I don't doubt that Keith - I was assuming that they'went out at a low tide and took a look at the surrounding area and tried to make it at least equal to the surrounding areas. But when we went in to survey this work was done of course quickly at' low tide, went in a survey stakes, and Houtz - now what he-said was that it follows the incline of the original ramp. And that appears to be true as you can see. We were talking about by cutting this off, this is the line of the existing sheet pile you can see that indeed the .ramp does follow that line and it does not vary in elevation at all and I see no evidence that that was cut off per instructions, am I right about that. During construction they didn't go in a wack off the top of any of that sheet rock. Williams - what was that sheet pile in there originally for. Why was it installed there to begin with was that an old dock that ran into the river a long time ago. Houtz - it appears to be a part of the original boat ramp construction. Wagoner - that boat ramp 'was never toally completed was it, weren't they supposed to go down. there turn and go up the river, that was a real fiasco, they got all screwed up and, I'~.,don't know who originally did that, that was so long ago. Houtz - That was so long ago, anyway this photograph makes it pretty clear, you see how much higher the mud is on the left side of the ramp than it is on the right side and it looks to me like that sheet pile on the left was an afterthought to try to clean that up. Houtz I thin~ when they realized that, as John said, they had dug a trench when they put in the original ramp, then they put in additional sheet pile to try hold the mud back. Does anybody know if that's right or wrong. KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting', November 8, 1983 Page 6 Wagoner - that sheet pile has been in there a long time. Thats not part of this project. Houtz - no., no, thats right, all that is original. Although that predates this project. Jack - there was other steel piling over there along with that sheet piling inaudible Williams - the new ramp is on the left and the old is on the right isn't that correct. Weller - no, it was originally was centered. Williams - all right, the old ramp was in the middle then, running~ right down the middle? Weller - that's right. Houtz - the single lane ramp was centered on that row of guide piles on the Keith - originally it was in the center Houtz - in this one I'm standing in the mud and I'm shooting down to the water' line which you can barely make out because of the lighting. Right there's the water line. Right there's the sheet piling and you can see that it goes on actually it appears right to the end of the planking. I've never seen a below minus 1 before. The original drawing shows, that this sheet pile ends half way down the ramp Jack - at approximately, I forgot Houtz - approximately 60 planks down. Keith - 97' Wagoner - it should have been covered. It might have looked to them when they were down there like it did end there. Houtz- if that's true that tells Us what the depth of the mud was then. It says that it was deeper than it is now. Wagoner - where else would the piling come from. It was obviously part of that boat ramp that was sitting there. Houtz ~- you. can see even on the downstream side the mud line is slightly below the ramp level and slightly below the top of the sheet pile. But again you can see that the dock follows the sheet pile right now. KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, .'1983 Page 7 Wtliams - is this dredged out thing in there for that barge to set in. (referring to photo showing part of next dock) just pick it up and dump it out a lit.tle further out hoping the river will carry it out. Houtz - again you can see that it.. did follow the line of the sheet pile so it must be within a matter of inches of the original grade. Jack- that silt pile there(inaudible) Williams- meaning the people downstream from us that have dredged out hasn't helped~us. Jack- right, they pile it out there in hopes that the current will carry it away. Williams - they do that periodically. When they dredge there they don't do anything with it except slop it out a little bit further in it fills back in and they dredge every couPle years. Houtz - you can see that the mud doesn't get any deeper as you go down, you can still, see the outline of the individual planks all the way down. There you can see the depth of the mud, you can see where I walked in it. (referring to another slide) Houtz - this is looking on the upstream side. You can see the downstream side looking back up the ramp, this is the sheetpile and you can see it follows that down. This is the downstream side. Williams - this is all very well done here, the sheetpile and everything in there, its when we get further up towards the head of the ramp we begin to have our concerns. Williams - this is where we begin to have our concerns now. Keith- this is where (inaudible) change, order (inaudible) Houtz - now that was not in any way covered by the scope of this job. There was nothing covered with trying to clean up this, this was like that to being with Keith- those planks werent there Houtz- yes, this was like that to begin with. The used planks weren't there of course but we asked those to be put there right. Keith- our crews put them KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 8 Wagoner - I'm not so sure the ideal thing to do there is not to go buy several truck loads of large agregate, come back and cover the whole thing. Because you do not have much of a current in there, but the time the water gets up that high you don?'t have any current in there,, all you need to do is fill that in and stoke (inaudible) with large aggregate and you arn't going to loose a darned thing. It's always been filled in with silt an junk and crap and it washes out. Keith - its never been a problem before because the ramp was about 8' away. Now its about, well its about 1' away~ So its always washed out 4 or 5', we filled it in. with a couple loads of gravel every once in a while, now we can't even let it get a foot away from that wall (inaudible) Keith- first thing next spring our crews are going in there (portions inaudible due to several people talking at once) with a backhoe--- and digging along side there-- and backfilling the dockside. (What shows on the slide) wa only a temporary thing. Houtz - I agree with you Jack. Its constructed according to the drawings. The issue about the slope, if we really take issue with that .I think we should take TAMS to task, of course there's nothing that can be done financially at this point, (inaudible - too many people speaking at once.) Williams - its my understanding that the grade of the slope is no different than the original is that correct. Houtz - thats correct Williams - so if the original ramp was sufficient and worked properly, it too must have had the same amount of mud as this one has. Keith - do you remember that bulkhead going down the full length of the ramp. Does the ramp go deeper or higher than that? I've. never seen that boat ramp. T. Thompson- your saying that the top of this ramp., could have buried as the ramp got older. Cause it seems to me that it is a bit lower. (inaudible) Houtz - I personally agree with you cause I looked at it before the work was started and I don't think that the ramp was down like 6 inches below the top of the sheet pile. Wagoner - you dont have any pictures of that ramp before construction project started. Keith - no. KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 9 Keith- to me its immaterial whether or not work was (inaudible) should be engineered (inaudible)One of the comments the contractor told me in relation to the final papers '(inaud) he asked me did the design engineer come down here and look at this at low tide, he showed 6 different items that he had cut out of the way in order to build the ramp that were never shown on the drawings. I don't know, ·maybe they .were buried in mud, but Commission adjourned to view maps upstairs. Williams - at this point in time the Commission should decide what, if anything, to do about offering our acceptance of-the boat ramp project. The city obviously has accepted it. Weller - there may not be any action to take, but Mr. Chairman I dOn't see anything wrong somehow about whether its in one of our future meetings with TAMS or whatever, the first little dinky part. of our project we get started here and maybe its going to straighten out but it doens't look that good right off the bat and I don't know if its a designing problem or not. I'm not happy with what I see there where it sits and are we going to get into the bigger project later, I don't know I'd like to have more confidence in the design we're going to have. Williams- the way its done sometimes handled is that even after the designing contractor is finished and a new contractor is brought in to start constructio a third uninterested engineering firm is assigned the inspection task which would relieve the city of that responsibility as well and the third engineerin firm would police the construction. Wagoner - the thing that bothers me on this whole deal, Keith showed me this thing, it shows all the existing stuff they had to move that weren't shown on TAMS drawings. Ask two questions, #1 does the city have inits drawings file, drawings of the original ramp. answer no. WhO did the original. Answer too long ago from Weller. Wagoner - I want to know why TAMS didn't look up and find the original drawings. Weller - you wouldn't even have need the plans if you'd have walked down there at low tide from that picture upstairs everything was sticking up out of the ground. Jack - I get the impression that they may not have walked down there at low tide. Wagoner - I also get the impression that if they had taken a pair. of boots and a shovel and taken a line of sight down through that sheet piling on the lower side and walked out there 50' and takne a shovel and moved about 2' of dirt they'd havefound sheet piling there too. KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 10 Houtz - to me that is valid. Wagoner- I really do not think that TAMS did a very good job on that after I looked mo.re at this and those slide tonight. Keith - one other thing that kind of bothers me is we started, you know, on th harbor issue is it was public works suggestion to enlarge the parking area because it didn't seem that there was adequate approach to the two rampp that they were, they narrowed down to such a narrow area there we thought it should be enlarged a little bit and also a little place to put some of the skiffs its now we're not going to have anyplace to put skiffs.~ They can pass there on the opposite, on one side of the road, thats a ramp now so they're going to have to drag those somewhere, but anyhOw we got to working on the ramp and we had some real quantity problems as far as hoW to measure the quantities that we had to do, gravel and sand was being brought in, we contacted TAMS and they said well, just pay the contractor whats in the documents in other words just pay him the numberof cubic yards that they had estimated it as. Well, thats never done (inaudible) in fl~e construction industry. You run a cross section or load count. Weller - just pay him huh. Keith - when I questioned him about it they said just pay him whatever was on the plans. Jack - (inaudible) Williams - so there wasn't any load counts at all made. You did a cross section? where they .took the material from? Keith - we devised the most common method of measure but of course the qeustion is, that should have been in the bid documents. The contractor had a full right to come back and say hey, we .dont want to do it this way we want to do it by some other method - they didn't have a method that was the big. Jack - what we did was take a layer of the existing material off the parking lot (inaudible) and brought in a foot of D-1 gravel. Anyway there was no (too many voiced to hear) all that exists, they just pushed over, if it met the specs for material it could be called a class C at the time of bidding the contractor really had no way of know how much of that was going to be good and how much (?) so he puts a price of $6 a yard on it and then he'd have to haul it all in.. It was almost all usable, we paid him an excavation quantity which could have been $3/yard for just a dozer pushing that over. But they have to pay $6for it cause there wasn't any use for it. Thats all we use on all our streets. Usable excavation and unusable excavation and barrow, a different type of (?) we didn't feel that was covered. KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 11 Williams - what do we do when we feel perhaps the engineering hasn't been correct.. Then it comes back to that point, do we go out and hire a 3rd party to do the inspections. Houtz - we had a 3rd party. Wagoner - once its bid is led all a 3rd party can do is tell you ya its going to cost you this much dollars to make it right, thats not going to solve the problem. There's no way to solve it but I think TAMS should be confronted with the situation and the things that have happened but I think it shouldn't be sitting around a table like this I think it should be written down and documented, here's the facts and heres what we feel is wrong and let them respond to it. And I don't think it needs to be immediately I think it needs to be in writing first and then if they want a meeting, let them call a meeting. I think it should be reduced to writing and we feel there are these inequities what d° you have to say about it and that goes as far as what is or isn't in a bid document as well as the grade not being .the same grade as the ramp that was in there, if they want to dispute that I think we've 'got experts in photography over at the colleges, we've got professional photographers in the area they can take a look at Allen's slide, they can take a look at that picture up on Brighton's wall and I don't think they're going to say that there's that much deflection well (?) you've got the known level and the levels are still there. Williams - Keith is it possible for you to prepare a list of what the feelings of the inadequacies of that contract by next Wednesday night, a week .from this Wednesday, prepare a document we could offer to TAMS and-say that we are you know vitally concerned with these inadequacies in the ramp and in the engineering of this ramp. ~Keith - Jacks been really close to the project and he wrote a letter a couple council meetings ago and told the Council some of the problems that exist WagOner - Tom Ackerly will be your representative from the Council. You said this is for TAMS to hand it to them on the .16th. I'll tell you this right now, as Mayor I do not want TAMS coming to Council and being handed a letter and asked to be responding to it that night. I think it would be better to tell TAMS not to come, we're going to put it in writing and then respond and then if they want to come before Council and have a discussion with Keith and the harbor commission thats fine. Thats the way they used to do things and I'm not going to allow that kind of thing to happen at those Council meetings because it isn't constructive. Williams - TAMS is coming that night to make a presentation, this is a side issue Wagoner KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 12 Wagoner - I think before they make that presentation these other issues should be cleared up, John, cause I for one am very dissappointed seeing this and I'm not really going to listen with an open mind Williams - they're prepared to make these other presentations based on their ideas of the harbor design, we asked them to come up, they've prepared their slides and we asked them to be here, for that purpose. Perhaps, there's no action to be taken by the council at this meeting, its just strictly an informational meeting so that the Council understands you know what we're ~oing, you know where we're going. I think that this letter should be presented to them when they come up. I don't know, you know from the engineering department not from the council or commission. The engineering department should prepare this letter of inadequacies and copy us with it but I'm not going to call off their meeting with. the council at this late date because they have gone to a tremendous amount of work to be prepared for it, $o It was the decision that Keith would prepare the letter of inadequacies but would not become a council issue at the next meeting. T. Thompson- I think I would like the letter, them have that letter, think about that letter just a bit rather than try to make an on-the-spot answer , Williams - yes, ask them to respond to these concerns. I'd like to have that letter prepared as soon as possible with copies of it out to the Commissioners as soon as possible, I'm not sure that 8 days would allow us time to prepare it and send it to them prior to their coming here and I wouldn't want them to try to make preparations 'for answering that letter thinking, they were gong to have to do· it. before the council either. I think, lets get the list ready and et a draft of it out to the harbor commissioners first and then we'll go ahead and perhaps a draft out with a final copy to me to present to TAMS, I'll present it to them myself when they come here and tell them these are some things that we need to have some answers on before we get too farther along, might be the better way to handle it. 7. OLD BUSINESS a... Design .Concept..s .f. rom TAMS Chairman Williams stated that TAMS is prepared, to go before the Council With the recommendation that Alternative 2 be the harbor plan that is chosen due to its contour design to the pipeline and the fact that the pipeline would not have to be moved in this design. Alternate 5 would cause more' problems within the river but is still better than the other 3 originally presented to the Commission. Chairman Williams asked that any Commissioner able to attend the Council meeting, please do so. KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION SpeCial Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 13 b. Letter from TAMS - Returning., Item No further comments or discussion. 8.' NEW BUSINESS a. Request to Lease City Lands - Lot .1, Kenai Spit S/D, Schmidt/ Ducker/Edelman - Fisherman '..s,. packing ....... Besides the lease application and memo that was included in the packet, a memo was handed out at the meeting relating the history of the lot itself and the subsequent applications. Wagoner - R. Lee Seafoods was never, officially disbanded as a corporation nor were the assets ever disposed of, merely left in limbo and SEacatch then came into being through name change so Seacatch officially and legally was still R. Lee Seafoods., -, Chairman Williams read the history for the Commission. Chairman Williams realted to the Commission the fact that he had requested this ,history due to the tremendous struggle that has gOne on ON the lease application itself they ask for the desired length of the lease to be maximum permitted by the city. Reason is for expansion of the present fisheries processing plant and need extra space for boat storage plus an additional building. Chairman Williams pointed out that he personally feels that we should have a little more concern in leasing the lands to them, concern what will take place if the city ties up an additional portion of land, perhaps, to be used as collateral for other buildings. Wagoner- his objection was that they originally asked for a peice of land on lot 8 across Columbia Street, then instead of that they wanted a peice down the river with waterfront. They already have all the docking space they need, already, tied up all the river frontage they need 'to tie up, what they're looking at is tying up additional river frontage because for one thing, I know of two people who have looked at it from time to time with the idea of puttinganother processing plant on it, they're arguing now that we don"t want to put our boat storage over here, we'd ratherput it down river. I just~ do not feel that it is in the City's best interest~ to lease additional frontage along the river when the people really don't need the river frontage access for offloading fish, and the additional cost. I think we're getting back into the Bob Roper situation again. I don't think we need to do that. That is a very limited peice of property with the ability to put a dock in on that side of the river. KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 14 Commission next discussed the ROWS on the maps. It. is the responsibility of the Commission to see that all the lands along the river are use d properly and efficiently and goes along with Mayor Wagoner that~ they already occupy enough river frontage. The utilities that they are requesting to be installed, an ice house, a cool room, and boat storage have nothing in common whatsoever with water front .usage. ' '.~' Houtz from reading this leter am I correct in understanding that they have already been granted a lease or been authorized to lease the land to the west. Wagoner - a preliminary lease was approved then came back and said we really don't want th'at we really want lot 1. Wagoner - I guess I'm arguing' against it because I want to see the highest and best use made of the land. I guess this isn't like another peice of property. This is riverfront property. Mayor Wagoner voiced concern over' filling in wetlands, ~mx£~X~x it may not be possible to fill in either lot 1 or lot 2. Snow .geese come in to that area. Weller asked if it was acceptable to ask if they are current on their existing lease, Mayor 'Wagoner felt it was appropriate but did not know the status. Mayor Wagoner further stated that the City was to recieve back payments from whoever ultimately becomes responsible for the ownership of the ~buildings that are on city leased lands. Weller -on the estimates for the cost of the buildings, the quoted price is not half of what the cost will be. Commissioner T. Thompson moved to approve the lease application of (description) seconded by Commissioner Houtz. VOTE' Motion failed unanimously by roll call vote Mayor' Wagoner stated that he wiShed the lease application go on with the recommendation that they go back to the original lease they requested (lot to west) Should state that the Harbor~ CommiSsion has no problem if the city.and the P&Z enter into discussion with this outfit to lease a portion of the unsubdivided tract to the west. Concencu$ of Commission Commissioner Thompson- Feel there are concerns !) in the event that this business is not successful and the city does get the lease back in the event that the buisiness would want to sublease - I would hate to have these guys tie up a prime lease and double their money just by~ virtUe that they ]..eased it first. That kind of profiteering, I would like the City of Kenai have a right of reprisal. Wagoner - they do have that. KENAI HARBOR C OMMI S S ION 'Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 15 Wagoner - since Tim Rogers came on board as attorney, we do not lease to corporations. They must come up front and sign as a private party. Weller ~- you mean each individual has to sign separately. Wagoner - yes° ABC incoporated will not' be able to lease. There were too many of these chapter 11 bankruptcy. ,b.,.. F!n.,an, cial .Rep0.rt - C,A; Brown Reitterated. JW 531,000 earmarked for port facilities grant, the money is earmarked and. must check with CAB. The harbor study is more flexible, some used for bluff erosion study. Keith - materials cost for repairing the bulkhead (inaudible) Wagoner -not'sure that the best thing that could happen to that ramp would be to be silted in each year because it would 'keep the ramp from floating during the winter and from freezing with ice and being floated up and torn all to peices. Keith - the old ramp had four peices of rebar, super reinforced and the city crews made 5 of those, a Steel form earlier this spring before the construction bid was let, we had. Williams - if we move ahead with the design of harbor there may very well be a pos.sibility that we would elect to go in with a request for the full 30 million. Mayor Wagoner was asked for status of request. It has gone to governors office and the dept. of transportation. There are additional crieteria that everyone is required to meet, the letter is available. 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 10. ADJOURNED Meeting adjourned at 9'45 pm